ORAU TEAM

Dose Reconstruction

Project for NIOSH

Oak Ridge Associated Universities I Dade Moeller & Associates I MJW Corporation

Page 1 of 56

Document Title:

Estimating Doses for Plutonium 

Strongly Retained in the Lung

Document Number: ORAUT-OTIB-0049

Revision: 01 

Effective Date: 12/18/2007

Type of Document: OTIB

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert(s): Roger B. Falk, Thomas R. LaBone, Donald E. Bihl, and David Allen, NIOSH Dose 

Reconstruction Team Leader

Site Expert(s): N/A

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 11/20/2007

Elizabeth M. Brackett, Document Owner

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 11/26/2007

James P. Griffin, Deputy Project Director

Concurrence: Signature on File Concurrence Date: 12/13/2007

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Approval: Signature on File Approval Date: 12/18/2007

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

 New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 56

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

02/06/2007 00 Approved new technical information bulletin to provide information for 

a model for estimating doses for highly insoluble plutonium. 

Incorporates internal and NIOSH formal review comments. 

Incorporates Attributions and Annotations section. There is an 

increase in assigned dose and a PER is required. Training required: 

As determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Donald E. Bihl.

12/18/2007 01 Approved revision which incorporates guidance on the application of 

Super S adjustment factors to coworker-derived intakes. No further 

changes occurred as a result of formal internal review. Incorporates 

NIOSH formal review comments. Training required: As determined 

by the Task Manager. Initiated by Elizabeth M. Brackett.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................

PAGE

5

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................6

2.0 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................6

3.0 Background..............................................................................................................................6

4.0 Method.....................................................................................................................................7

4.1 Application of Adjustment Factors ................................................................................7

4.1.1 Doses Calculated from Air Monitoring Data....................................................... 7

4.1.1.1 Lung Dose .......................................................................................7

4.1.1.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose........................................................................ 8

4.1.1.3 GI Tract ...........................................................................................8

4.1.1.4 Systemic Organs ............................................................................. 8

4.1.2 Intakes Calculated from Chest Count Data ....................................................... 9

4.1.2.1 Lung Dose .......................................................................................9

4.1.2.1.1 Monitored Individual .......................................................9

4.1.2.1.2 Unmonitored Individual (Coworker Data)...................... 10

4.1.2.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose...................................................................... 11

4.1.2.3 GI Tract ......................................................................................... 11

4.1.2.4 Systemic Organs ........................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Doses Based on Urinalysis Data..................................................................... 12

4.1.3.1 Lung and Thoracic Lymph Node Dose........................................... 12

4.1.3.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose...................................................................... 12

4.1.3.3 GI Tract ......................................................................................... 13

4.1.3.4 Systemic Organs ........................................................................... 13

4.1.3.4.1 Monitored Individual .....................................................13

4.1.3.4.2 Unmonitored Individual (Coworker Data)...................... 14

4.2 Particle Size Adjustments for RFP Plutonium Fires ....................................................14

4.3 Summary of Dose and Intake Adjustment Factors......................................................14

5.0 Applicability and Limitations ................................................................................................... 15

6.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 16

References ........................................................................................................................................20

ATTACHMENT A, CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN 

 THE LUNG........................................................................................................... 22

ATTACHMENT B, DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS........................... 33

ATTACHMENT C, DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR........................... 40

ATTACHMENT D, LUNG AND DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS..................................................... 44
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 4 of 56

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

4-1 Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu ....................................

PAGE

8

4-2 Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from a 

 chest count ..............................................................................................................................9

4-3 Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from a

 chest count (simplified method).............................................................................................. 10

4-4 Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from 7 years of 

 coworker chest count data ..................................................................................................... 11

4-5 Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from

 urinary excretion data ............................................................................................................ 12

4-6 Type S and Type SS liver doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from 

 urinary excretion data ............................................................................................................ 13

4-7 Type S and Type SS liver doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from

 urinary excretion data ............................................................................................................ 14

4-8 Summary of Type SS adjustments ......................................................................................... 14

A-1 Solubility parameter comparison for SRS 498........................................................................ 31

C-1 Comparison of lung and liver estimates to autopsy data ........................................................ 43

D-1 Lung dose adjustment factors, acute intake and chronic intakes, 1–7 years .......................... 45

D-2 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 8–15 years ................................................... 47

D-3 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 16–23 years ................................................. 49

D-4 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 24–31 years ................................................. 51

D-5 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 32–39 years ................................................. 53

D-6 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 40–45 years ................................................. 55

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

A-1 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 101...............................................

PAGE

23

A-2 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 207............................................... 24

A-3 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 825............................................... 25

A-4 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 872............................................... 26

A-5 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 934............................................... 26

A-6 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 1400............................................. 27

A-7 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 700............................................... 28

A-8 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 725............................................... 29

A-9 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 1228............................................. 30

A-10 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case HAN-1 .................................................. 31

B-1 Comparison of projected plutonium lung content for 10 design cases and standard Type S 

plutonium for acute intake of 1 Bq and particle size of 5 μm AMAD........................................ 36

B-2 Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for acute intake............................................. 37

B-3 Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for 30-yr chronic intake................................. 38

C-1 Comparison of urinary excretion for a 50-year chronic intake................................................. 41

C-2 Comparison of urinary excretion following an acute intake..................................................... 41

C-3 Comparison of urinary excretion following a chronic intake .................................................... 42

 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 5 of 56

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AI alveolar interstitial

AMAD activity median aerodynamic diameter

Bq becquerel

d day

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DTPA diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid

g gram

GI gastrointestinal

HRTM Human Respiratory Tract Model

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

IMBA Integrated Modules for Bioassay Assessment (computer program)

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LNTH lymph nodes, thoracic

min minute

mL milliliter

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

ppm parts per million

RFP Rocky Flats Plant

SRS Savannah River Site

Sv sievert

TIB technical information bulletin

Type SS Super S absorption type

U.S.C. United States Code

USTUR United States Transuranium and Uranium Registry

yr year

μm micrometer
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 6 of 56

1.0

Technical information bulletins (TIBs) are not official determinations made by the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working documents that provide 

historic background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of dose reconstructions at 

particular sites or categories of sites. They will be revised in the event that additional relevant 

information is obtained. TIBs may be used to assist NIOSH staff in the completion of individual dose 

reconstructions.

INTRODUCTION

In this document, the word “facility” is used as a general term for an area, building, or group of 

buildings that served a specific purpose at a site. It does not necessarily connote an “atomic weapons 

employer facility” or a “Department of Energy [DOE] facility” as defined in the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. § 7384l (5) and (12)).

2.0

The purpose of this TIB is to provide a method for calculating a best estimate (for the purposes of this 

project) of the annual organ doses for intakes of plutonium that are retained in the lung longer than 

predicted by the normal absorption Type S model and to describe the conditions for applicability of 

this method.

PURPOSE

Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to identify the source, 

justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in Section 6.0.

3.0

A body of evidence from animal studies and accidental human intakes has come forth in, 

approximately, the last 30 years indicating that the lung can retain inhaled plutonium oxides for a very 

long time. In recognition of this, in 1994 the International Commission on Radiological Protection 

(ICRP) increased the retention time of insoluble (Type S) plutonium in the ICRP 66 Human 

Respiratory Tract Model (HRTM) in relation to the retention predicted by the ICRP 30 respiratory tract 

model (ICRP 1979, 1994, 1997). Nevertheless, a handful of accidental intakes of plutonium oxides at 

the DOE Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) (Mann 1967), Hanford Site (Carbaugh 1991,2001, Bihl et al 1988), 

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) (Filipy 2004, James 2005), and Savannah River Site (SRS) 

(Carbaugh 2001) have exhibited long-term retention of plutonium in the lung exceeding that predicted 

by the standard Type S model. Recent autopsies on workers exposed to plutonium at the Mayak 

Production Association (Mayak) in Russia revealed a similar effect. These cases are discussed in 

Attachment A.

BACKGROUND

Because the cases discussed in Attachment A are from occupational human intakes rather than 

controlled animal experiments, information needed to define the circumstances that lead to retention 

of plutonium in the lung exceeding the Type S model is insufficient [1]. Indeed, the scientific 

community lacks consensus about whether this phenomenon truly represents another type of material 

with different lung absorption parameters, a degradation of the anatomical or physiological processes 

that remove particles from the lung because of damage from smoking or other toxic materials or from 

the plutonium alpha radiation itself, or is a demonstration of extreme but natural individual human 

variability in these processes in a few workers [2]. However, it is clear that, with the depletion of the 

fast-removal components, the rate of removal of plutonium from the lung is slower than that predicted 

by Type S material for some people under some conditions; as a consequence, the total dose to an 

organ accumulated over many years is greater. This phenomenon has been popularly referred to as 

“Type Super S” (or “Type SS” for short), although it is not established that it necessarily is caused only 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 7 of 56

by slower absorption of the plutonium into the blood (Carbaugh 2003). ICRP publication 66 does 

allow for the development of material-specific absorption parameters if sufficient information exists. 

While the absorption parameters in ICRP 66 are controlled by chemical solubility and are thus 

dependent on chemical form, mechanical clearance from the lungs is considered to be independent of 

chemical form. In the course of evaluating design cases, it was observed that even when the 

absorption parameters were set to very long clearance times, the mechanical clearance from the 

lungs alone was too fast to account for the slow lung clearance observed in the design cases. 

As discussed in Attachments A and B, the correction factors in this TIB were developed using nine 

cases from Rocky Flats and one case from Hanford that had well-defined intakes and exhibited long 

lung retention times. Individual lung clearance parameters, as well as absorption parameters, were 

modified for each case in order to match lung counts and urinalyses performed on these individuals. 

These individual adjustments in themselves are not considered to be appropriate (either as averages 

or as a distribution of ranges) for application to the general population. By choosing the worst case 

clearances (i.e., the ones with the largest deviation from Type S), a bounding absorption type can be 

defined, which is applied to all cases where the default inhalation exposure is to Type SS plutonium. 

Therefore, this TIB does not propose a new class of material for general modeling purposes or 

propose a new variation of the lung model. Rather, to account for the increased organ doses, the TIB 

analysis developed empirical “dose adjustment factors” from selected cases from RFP and Hanford 

that exhibited Type SS behavior following intakes of 239Pu mixtures. For intakes calculated from 

urinary excretion data, a bounding analysis is implemented as an intake adjustment factor rather than 

a defined change in ICRP model parameters. The basis for this intake adjustment factor is given in 

Attachment C.

4.0

4.1 APPLICATION OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

METHOD

The standard approach adopted in this TIB is to first calculate doses to the organs of interest by 

applying the standard Type S model to the available bioassay data or air monitoring data. Then, one 

or more adjustment factors are applied to this dose in order to account for the longer retention of Type 

SS material in the lungs and, in the case of urine bioassay data, the lower urinary excretion per unit 

intake of Type SS material compared to Type S material.

Adjustments to both monitored individuals and to coworker data sets are addressed. In general, 

adjustments made to the intake activity are based on dates associated with the bioassay data used to 

determine the intake rates while adjustments to doses, applied to account for the longer retention in 

the lung of Type SS, are based on the intake periods. In the case of coworker data, adjustment 

factors are applied independently to each intake period. For example, if four different intake rates are 

applied throughout an individual’s employment period, four separate sets of intake and dose 

adjustments would be made. 

4.1.1

4.1.1.1 Lung Dose

Doses Calculated from Air Monitoring Data

In cases where the intake is derived from air monitoring, the intake is based on direct measurements. 

For Type SS material, the annual dose to the lung (including the thoracic lymph nodes) will be 

underestimated if one assumes a Type S model because of the longer retention time. Therefore, 

annual lung doses calculated with the Type S model are multiplied by dose adjustment factors. These 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 8 of 56

factors are given in Attachment D for each year from 1 to 65 for 46 different intake scenarios. The 

scenarios are based on the period of intake, specifically acute and chronic intake periods from 1 to 65 

years in 1-year intervals [3]. Because the dose adjustment factors decrease as the chronic exposure 

period increases, for chronic intakes for partial years, dose reconstructors should truncate the partial 

year and use the dose adjustment factor table for the full year; for instance, if the intake period is 

4.5 years, use the dose adjustment factors for a 4-year chronic intake [4].

For example, assume a person had a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu based on air monitoring results

and the annual Type SS lung doses to the end of year 10 are needed. First, the Type S lung 

equivalent doses Hs(t) are calculated for each year based on standard Type S models and methods. 

These doses are given in column 2 of Table 4-1. The Type SS lung dose is obtained by multiplying 

the Type S dose by the dose adjustment factors for a 5-year chronic intake from Table D-1 (column 3 

of Table 4-1). The Type SS lung doses for each year are given in column 4 of Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year 

chronic intake of 239Pu. 

Year

Type S lung 

dose (rem)

Dose adjustment

factor

Type SS lung 

dose (rem)

1 29.8 1.6 47.7

2 39.0 1.9 74.1

3 43.5 2.1 91.4

4 46.8 2.4 112.3

5 49.4 2.6 128.4

6 21.2 3.5 74.2

7 13.6 4.5 61.1

8 10.2 5.7 58.3

9 7.9 6.9 54.7

10 6.3 8.2 51.4

The procedure and resulting dose would be the same for any chronic intake period ≥5 years and <6 

years because the dose reconstructor truncated the intake period before looking up the dose 

adjustment factor in Attachment D.

4.1.1.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose

The extra-thoracic retention model is assumed to be the same for both Type S and Type SS material 

[5]. Therefore, for a given intake, the dose to the extra-thoracic organs (including the lymph nodes) is 

assumed to be the same for both solubility types. Because the intakes calculated from air monitoring 

data are the same for both solubility types, doses to this region are calculated assuming that the 

intake is Type S material [6].

4.1.1.3 GI Tract

For a given intake, the doses to the GI tract organs are assumed to be the same for Type S and Type 

SS material. Therefore, doses to this region are calculated assuming that the intake is Type S 

material [7].

4.1.1.4 Systemic Organs

For a given intake, the dose to the systemic organs from a Type Super S material will be less than 

that from Types M or S because the material will be retained in the lungs longer; the material will be 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 9 of 56

transported to the systemic organs more slowly. Therefore, the assumption that the dose from Type 

Super S is equal to that from Type S is favorable to the claimant. 

4.1.2

4.1.2.1 Lung Dose

Intakes Calculated from Chest Count Data

To calculate Type SS lung doses from chest count measurements, the dose to the lung is first 

calculated assuming that Type S material was inhaled. This dose is then adjusted upward with the 

factors given in Appendix D. However, the application of the adjustment factor will result in an implied 

Type SS lung content that is inconsistent with the original chest count. To make the observed and 

predicted chest counts agree, the Type SS lung dose must be adjusted downward by applying the 

adjustment factor for the year of the chest count used to determine the intake [8]. This also applies to 

coworker data, where the chest counts used for the derivation of the given intake rate must agree with 

the predicted values.

This process is best illustrated through example, as shown below. 

4.1.2.1.1 Monitored Individual

Given a single measured chest content of 34.7 nCi of 239Pu on day 1,825 (the end of the chronic 

intake period), an intake rate of 1000 pCi/d is calculated for an intake of Type S material. This yields 

the annual lung doses in the second column of Table 4-1. The Type SS doses for this intake rate are 

then obtained by multiplying the Type S dose for a given year by the adjustment factor in Attachment 

D. For this example, in Table D-1 the “Chronic 5 yr” column would be used. For example, year 5 is 

calculated by multiplying the 49.4 rem Type S lung dose by 2.6 to obtain a Type SS lung dose of 

128.4 rem. However, this adjustment creates an inconsistency; specifically, if one assumes that the 

lung dose for year 5 is proportional to the measured chest content in year 5, the Type SS dose 

adjustment implies that the chest content is (34.7 nCi)(2.6) = 90.2 nCi, which is inconsistent with what 

was measured.

To make the measured and implied lung contents agree (i.e., to make the intake amounts agree), all 

of the Type SS lung doses must be adjusted downward by the dose adjustment factor for the year of 

the chest count. In the current example, all Type SS doses are divided by a factor of 2.6, which is 

shown in Table 4-2. Because this is essentially an intake adjustment factor, it could also be applied 

directly to the Type S intake prior to dose calculation, thus simplifying the calculations. The year of 

the chest count should be rounded down to the nearest whole year when selecting the factor from 

Table D-1. Note that this adjustment makes the Type S and Type SS lung doses agree at the time of 

the chest count (year 5), which means that the measured and implied lung contents will also agree.

Table 4-2. Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from a 

chest count. 

Year

Type S lung 

dose (rem)

Dose adjustment

factor

Unadjusted Type SS

lung dose (rem)

Chest count 

adjustment factor

Adjusted Type SS

lung dose (rem)

1 29.8 1.6 47.7 2.6 18.4

2 39.0 1.9 74.1 2.6 28.5

3 43.5 2.1 91.4 2.6 35.2

4 46.8 2.4 112.3 2.6 43.2

5 49.4 2.6 128.4 2.6 49.4

6 21.2 3.5 74.2 2.6 28.5

7 13.6 4.5 61.1 2.6 23.5
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 10 of 56

Year

Type S lung 

dose (rem)

Dose adjustment

factor

Unadjusted Type SS

lung dose (rem)

Chest count 

adjustment factor

Adjusted Type SS

lung dose (rem)

8 10.2 5.7 58.3 2.6 22.4

9 7.9 6.9 54.7 2.6 21.0

10 6.3 8.2 51.4 2.6 19.8

 

Alternatively, applying the intake adjustment factor first to simplify the calculations, the adjusted Type 

S intake is:

d

d pCi

pCi

Intake Adjustment Factor

Type S Intake Rate Adjusted Type S Intake Rate 385

6.2

1000 = = =

Lung doses are then calculated for this intake rate (385 pCi/d); the annual doses from this intake are 

in the second column of Table 4-3.

Table 4-3. Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 

239Pu calculated from a chest count (simplified method). 

Year

Lung dose from 

adjusted Type S

intake (rem)

Dose adjustment

factor

Type SS

lung dose (rem)

1 11.5 1.6 18.4

2 15.0 1.9 28.5

3 16.8 2.1 35.2

4 18.0 2.4 43.2

5 19.0 2.6 49.4

6 8.2 3.5 28.7

7 5.2 4.5 23.5

8 3.9 5.7 22.5

9 3.1 6.9 21.1

10 2.4 8.2 19.8

4.1.2.1.2 Unmonitored Individual (Coworker Data)

For coworker data, the intake adjustment factor is dependent only on the period used for calculating 

the coworker intake rate; that is, it is independent of the worker to whom the coworker intakes are 

assigned. For example, given a set of site chest count data from 1974 through 1980 (7 years), a 

coworker intake rate of 1000 pCi/d is calculated for an intake of Type S material. To determine the 

coworker intake rate for Type SS material, the intake rate adjustment factor (called the “chest count 

adjustment factor” in this particular instance) must first be applied to the Type S intake rate. This is a 

downward adjustment because Type SS material remains in the lungs longer than Type S material. 

For this example, the last chest count used to fit the data occurred in year 7, so a factor of 3.1 is 

selected from Table D-1. This factor is applied to the Type S intake rate of 1000 pCi/d to obtain a 

Type SS intake rate of 323 pCi/d:

( ) d

d pCi

pCi

Intake Adjustment Factor year

Type S Intake Rate Adjusted Type S Intake Rate 323

1.3

1000

7 = = =
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 11 of 56

The annual lung doses, based on Type S, from this intake rate are shown in column 2 of Table 4-4. 

The dose adjustment factor will depend on the intake period assigned to the individual. To continue 

with the above example, given an unmonitored individual who worked from Jan. 1, 1975 to Dec. 31, 

1979, he would have had a 5-year chronic intake and the dose adjustment factors from the “Chronic 5 

year” column of Table D-1 would apply. These adjustment factors are shown in the “Dose adjustment 

factor” column of Table 4-4. The final coworker doses to be assigned to the unmonitored individual 

are shown in the last column of the table.

Table 4-4. Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of

239Pu calculated from 7 years of coworker chest count data. 

Year

Lung dose from 

adjusted Type S

intake (rem)

Dose adjustment

factor

Type SS

lung dose (rem)

1 9.6 1.6 15.4

2 12.6 1.9 23.9

3 14.0 2.1 29.5

4 15.1 2.4 36.2

5 15.9 2.6 41.4

6 6.8 3.5 23.9

7 4.4 4.5 19.7

8 3.3 5.7 18.8

9 2.5 6.9 17.6

10 2.0 8.2 16.6

Note that when a worker’s employment spans several coworker periods, each period is addressed 

separately. Adjustment factors are based only on the employment within the individual coworker 

periods. For instance, if the worker in the above example worked until 1985, the dose adjustment for 

the example period would be based on 6 years (1975 to 1980, the year of the last bioassay result 

used for the coworker intake rate).

4.1.2.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose

The extra-thoracic retention model is assumed to be the same for both Type S and Type SS material 

[9]. This means that, for a given intake, the dose to the extra-thoracic organs is assumed to be the 

same for both solubility types. For a given chest count, the intake calculated with the Type S model 

will be larger than with the Type SS model because the Type S model predicts faster clearance from 

the thoracic region. Therefore, doses to the extra-thoracic organs should be calculated with the Type 

S model with no adjustments [10]. 

4.1.2.3 GI Tract

The GI tract retention model is assumed to be the same for both Type S and Type SS material. This 

means that, for a given intake, the dose to the GI-tract organs is assumed to be the same for both 

solubility types. For a given chest count, the intake calculated with the Type S model will be larger 

than with the Type SS model because the Type S model predicts faster clearance from the thoracic 

region. Therefore, doses to the GI-tract organs should be calculated with the Type S model with no 

adjustments [11]. 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 12 of 56

4.1.2.4 Systemic Organs

Doses to systemic organs should be based on urine bioassay data when possible. If it is necessary to 

calculate these doses from chest count data, the Type S model should be used with no adjustments 

[12].

4.1.3

4.1.3.1 Lung and Thoracic Lymph Node Dose

Doses Based on Urinalysis Data

To calculate Type SS lung doses from urinary excretion measurements, the annual dose to the lung 

for the years of interest is first calculated from urinary excretion data using the standard Type S 

model. The urinary excretion data can consist of measured results and/or results less than the 

reporting level. The annual lung doses calculated with the Type S model are then multiplied by the 

dose adjustment factors in Attachment D. This adjustment accounts for the longer retention of Type 

SS material in the lung, but it does not address the lower urinary excretion rate expected from Type 

SS material.

To account for the lower excretion rate expected from Type SS material, the approach adopted here 

is to apply a single bounding correction factor of 4 (which is derived in Attachment C) to adjust the 

intake of Type S material upward to an intake of Type SS material. This “intake adjustment” 

increases the thoracic doses determined from urinalysis with the Type S model by a factor of 4 and is 

applied in addition to the Attachment D adjustment factors that account for increased retention in the 

lung.

For example, referring back to Table 4-1, assuming that the Type S chronic intake rate had been 

calculated based on urinary excretion, the Type SS lung doses are multiplied by the intake adjustment 

factor of 4 to obtain the final Type SS lung doses (see Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. Type S and Type SS lung doses after a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from 

urinary excretion data.

Year

Type S lung 

dose (rem)

Dose adjustment 

factor

Unadjusted Type SS 

lung dose (rem)

Intake 

adjustment factor

Adjusted Type SS 

lung dose (rem)

1 29.8 1.6 47.7 4 190.9

2 39.0 1.9 74.1 4 296.3

3 43.5 2.1 91.4 4 365.6

4 46.8 2.4 112.3 4 449.4

5 49.4 2.6 128.4 4 513.6

6 21.2 3.5 74.2 4 296.8

7 13.6 4.5 61.1 4 244.3

8 10.2 5.7 58.3 4 233.0

9 7.9 6.9 54.7 4 218.6

10 6.3 8.2 51.4 4 205.5

The procedure and resulting dose would be the same for any chronic intake period ≥5 years and <6 

years because the dose reconstructor truncated the intake period before looking up the dose 

adjustment factor in Attachment D.

4.1.3.2 Extra-Thoracic Dose
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 13 of 56

Extra-thoracic doses should be calculated from urine bioassay data using the Type S model and then 

multiplied by a factor of 4 to account for the lower excretion rate of Type SS material compared to 

Type S material [13]. 

For coworker data, the intake adjustment factor of 4 is applied first and is included in the coworker 

summary (in the site-specific OTIB or TBD).

4.1.3.3 GI Tract

GI tract doses should be calculated from urine bioassay data using the Type S model and then 

multiplied by a factor of 4 to account for the lower excretion rate of Type SS material compared to 

Type S material [14]. 

For coworker data, the intake adjustment factor of 4 is applied first and is included in the coworker 

summary (in the site-specific OTIB or TBD).

4.1.3.4 Systemic Organs

Type SS material is absorbed into the blood stream at a slower rate than Type S material, which 

results in lower levels of material in the systemic organs and in the urine. Assuming that the doses to 

systemic organs are roughly proportional to the urinary excretion rate, organ doses determined from 

urine data are the same for Type S and Type SS materials during the period of time that urine data 

are available. However, for the period of time after the last urinalysis is available, the Type SS model 

would predict a much slower decrease in urine due to the continuing input to the bloodstream from the 

material contained in the lungs. Therefore, the predicted integrated urine content (and hence, 

systemic organ dose) must be adjusted after the time of the last urine bioassay measurement [15].

4.1.3.4.1 Monitored Individual

Consider the annual doses to the liver from a 5-year chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from urine data 

available for the first 5 years. As shown in Table 4-6, all liver doses from year 6 though year 10 are 

multiplied by the intake adjustment factor of 4 whereas the doses during years 1 through 5 are not.

Table 4-6. Type S and Type SS liver doses after a 5-year 

chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from urinary excretion data. 

Year

Type S

liver dose (rem)

Intake adjustment

factor

Type SS

liver dose (rem)

1 0.05 1 0.05

2 0.23 1 0.23

3 0.52 1 0.52

4 0.88 1 0.88

5 1.30 1 1.30

6 1.72 4 6.87

7 2.03 4 8.12

8 2.27 4 9.08

9 2.46 4 9.83

10 2.59 4 10.36

In summary, the annual doses to systemic organs should be determined from urine data using the 

Type S assumption. Annual doses received during the period for which urine data are available 

should not be adjusted. Annual doses received after the year of the last urine sample used in the 

determination should be multiplied by a factor of 4.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 14 of 56

4.1.3.4.2 Unmonitored Individual (Coworker Data)

Because the adjustment is based on intake rather than dose, the factor is applied to the time following 

the period used to determine the coworker intake rate rather than the worker’s exposure period. For 

example, given a set of site urinalysis data from 1974 through 1980 (7 years), and an individual who 

worked from Jan. 1, 1975 to Dec. 31, 1979 (5 years), the adjustment would be applied beginning in 

year 8.

Table 4-7. Type S and Type SS liver doses after a 5-year 

chronic intake of 239Pu calculated from urinary excretion data. 

Year

Type S

liver dose (rem)

Intake adjustment

factor

Type SS

liver dose (rem)

1 0.05 1 0.05

2 0.23 1 0.23

3 0.52 1 0.52

4 0.88 1 0.88

5 1.30 1 1.30

6 1.72 1 1.72

7 2.03 1 2.03

8 2.27 4 9.08

9 2.46 4 9.83

10 2.59 4 10.36

4.2 PARTICLE SIZE ADJUSTMENTS FOR RFP PLUTONIUM FIRES

Dose adjustment factors are based on the assumption of a 5-μm activity median aerodynamic 

diameter (AMAD) particle size (ICRP 1994). For the RFP plutonium fires, a particle size of 1 μm 

AMAD is recommended (ORAUT 2005). The dose adjustment factors underestimate the annual lung 

doses by a factor of 2.6 for 1 μm AMAD aerosols because the deposition in the alveolar interstitial (AI) 

region of the lung is 2.6 times greater for 1 μm aerosols than 5 μm aerosols per unit intake. For 

energy employees involved in a plutonium fire at RFP (or any time the dose reconstructor deems use 

of a 1-μm AMAD particle size appropriate), the dose adjustment factors in Attachment D must be 

multiplied by an additional factor of 2.6. Note that when the assessment is based on chest counts, the 

adjustment for particle size is not necessary because the lung deposition is directly measured, i.e., the 

dose would be adjusted upwards by this factor, but in order to get agreement in the Types S and SS 

predicted chest burdens, it would then need to be adjusted down by the same factor.

4.3 SUMMARY OF DOSE AND INTAKE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

A summary of the adjustments discussed above is provided in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8. Summary of Type SS adjustments.

Lung counts Air concentrations Urinalysis

Lungs Table D (normalized to 

last chest count)

Table D Factor of 4 followed by 

Table D adjustment

Extra-thoracic None None Factor of 4 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 15 of 56

Lung counts Air concentrations Urinalysis

GI tract No adjustment None Factor of 4 

Systemic organs None None Prior to last urine sample: 

none

Post last urine sample: 

factor of 4 

Note: For claims involved in high-fired events (e.g., the RFP fires), a particle size adjustment (as described in Section 4.2) of 

2.6 should be included.

5.0

There are a number of restrictions on when and how the adjustment factors can be used: 

APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATIONS

• Adjustment factors apply only to doses resulting from the intake of plutonium oxide; however, it 

is favorable to the claimant to apply them if the intake material is unknown and plutonium 

oxide is a possibility. Considering the uncertainty in the nature of the material, long-term 

(years) air oxidation of formerly Type M plutonium can be considered to apply [16].

• Adjustment factors apply only to doses resulting from intakes of plutonium for which the 

activity isotopic ratio of 239+240Pu to 238Pu is greater than 1. This restriction is based on the 

observed behavior of relatively pure 238Pu, which tends to be more soluble than 239Pu 

(Guilmette 1994, Hickman 1995, James 2003). When this condition is met, SS behavior 

applies to all isotopes in the plutonium mixture.

• Adjustment factors apply to the dose from 241Am in the mixture when the activity ratio of 

239+240Pu to 241Am is greater than 1 [17].

• Adjustment factors do not apply to situations where the plutonium is a minor constituent by 

mass in another matrix, such as in recycled uranium [18].

• Adjustment factors may be applied to chest count data (using the adjustment discussed in 

Section 4) except when there are multiple positive chest count results that occur in more than 

one year. The case should be evaluated to determine if a best fit to the actual data should be 

performed in such cases [19]. 

• Because the highest of the various dose adjustment factors was used for Attachment C, no 

additional uncertainty should be applied to the lung dose calculation; i.e., use the same 

uncertainty distribution as was applicable to the Type S dose calculation [20]. 

• The methods described in this TIB can be applied to doses from coworker studies for sites 

where Type SS absorption is appropriate, but only Type S intakes were assessed. The types 

of adjustments made to the Type S intakes and doses should be based on the method used to 

create the coworker study (i.e., whether the intakes are based on urinalysis or chest counts) 

[21]. 

The reasons for the restrictions on the use of dose adjustment factors are discussed in detail in 

Attachments A and B.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 16 of 56

6.0

Where appropriate in this document, bracketed callouts have been inserted to indicate information, 

conclusions, and recommendations provided to assist in the process of worker dose reconstruction. 

These callouts are listed here in the Attributions and Annotations section, with information to identify 

the source and justification for each associated item. Conventional References, which are provided in 

the next section of this document, link data, quotations, and other information to documents available 

for review on the Project’s Site Research Database.

ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

[1] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

There are documented cases (see references in first paragraph of Section 3.0) of occupational 

exposure to plutonium where the plutonium is retained in the lung for longer periods of time 

than expected for Type S plutonium.

[2] Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2007.

Based on personal discussions on this topic with A. C. James, R. J. Guilmette, F. F. Hahn, W. 

J. Bair, and others. Also based on peer review on an article on this subject submitted to 

Health Physics that was rejected because of lack of consensus among the reviewers and 

authors on key issues of the model. 

[3] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The chronic intake periods and dose intervals were selected to provide reasonable increments 

of the dose factors for all intake scenarios while at the same time limiting the length of the 

tables.

[4] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

For example, the lung dose adjustment factor for year 7 following a 5-year chronic intake is 4.5 

whereas the dose adjustment factor for year 7 following a 4-year chronic intake is 5.2. Thus, if 

the chronic intake period is 4.5 years, a dose that is favorable to the claimant is assessed by 

using the value for 4 years.

[5] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

There is no empirical information from the reviewed cases or in the open literature on which to 

base a modification.

[6] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Because the doses to the ET region are the same for equal intakes of Type S plutonium and 

Type SS plutonium, there is no adjustment to be made for Type SS.

[7] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The dose to the GI tract from an inhalation of plutonium is the result of plutonium that is 

deposited in and subsequently cleared from the respiratory tract. Because the inhaled Type 

SS plutonium is retained in the lung for a longer time than Type S material, less is transferred 

to the GI tract and hence the dose is lower than for an equal intake of Type S plutonium. 

However, because of uncertainties in the Type SS model parameters, Type S plutonium is 

recommended for calculating doses to the GI tract in order to be favorable to the claimant.

[8] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The first factor to account for increased dose to the lung from the Type SS material is due to 

the longer retention time in the lungs, so for equal intakes of Types S and SS materials, the 

chest burden from Type SS will be larger than that from Type S at any given time. Because 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 17 of 56

the Type SS adjustment factors are applied to intake calculations based on Type S material, 

this second factor is applied to make the predicted and measured chest burdens agree for the 

Type SS material.

[9] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

For example, the lung dose adjustment factor for year 7 following a 5-year chronic intake is 4.5 

whereas the dose adjustment factor for year 7 following a 4-year chronic intake is 5.2. Thus, if 

the chronic intake period is 4.5 years, a dose that is favorable to the claimant is assessed by 

using the value for 4 years.

[10] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

There is no empirical information from the reviewed cases or in the open literature on which to 

base a modification.

[11] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Because the doses to the ET region are the same for equal intakes of Type S plutonium and 

Type SS plutonium, there is no adjustment to be made for Type SS.

[12] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The plutonium in the lung has not been taken up into the bloodstream and is therefore not yet 

available to be deposited in systemic organs and deliver dose. On the other hand, the 

plutonium in the urine is a good indicator of the levels of plutonium that has been in the 

bloodstream. For this reason, urine bioassay data are preferred for calculating dose to 

systemic organs. If the dose to a systemic organ needs to be calculated from the lung 

content, the more soluble plutonium forms will deliver the largest dose because they will leave 

the lungs more quickly and deposit in the systemic organs. Therefore, Type S is more 

favorable to the claimant than Type SS.

[13] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Because a smaller fraction of a Type SS intake goes to urine, the intake calculated assuming 

a Type S intake will be too small by up to a factor of 4. To adjust for this, the intake calculated 

with the Type S model is adjusted upwards by a factor of 4. 

[14] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Because a smaller fraction of a Type SS intake goes to urine, the intake calculated assuming 

a Type S intake will be too small by up to a factor of 4. To adjust for this, the intake calculated 

with the Type S model is adjusted upwards by a factor of 4. 

[15] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The systemic dose is not adjusted upwards as long as there are urine bioassay data available 

because the adjustment would predict a urinary excretion rate that is larger than that actually 

observed. It is applied after the last bioassay because it is unknown as to whether it 

decreases at the rate predicted by Type S or by Type SS.

[16] La Bone. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Plutonium oxide (especially the high-fired variety) is one of the most insoluble forms of 

plutonium (ICRP 1994, personal discussion with C.W. Sill) typically encountered in the 

workplace. However, it is not feasible to exclude the possibility that soluble forms of plutonium 

might become more insoluble over time (La Bone, T. R. and W. M. Findley 1999; J. C. Moody, 

G. N. Stradling, and A. R. Britcher 1994). Therefore, the TIB is assumed to apply if the form of 

the plutonium is not known. This is used as an additional possibility of material type; all 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 18 of 56

possibilities are calculated and the type resulting in the largest dose is applied to be favorable 

to the claimant.

[17] Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2007.

It is standard industry practice to assume the long-term retention of particles in the lung is 

related to the physical and chemical properties of the particle matrix. For example, if the 

particle is plutonium oxide with small quantities of a contaminant like 241Am (which is 

normally much more soluble than plutonium oxide), the 241Am is assumed to be trapped in 

the particle matrix and exhibit the same retention as the matrix. However, once the 241Am

becomes a major component of the particle, it tends to assume its own solubility rather than 

that of the matrix. Because the point at which this occurs is unknown, it was estimated that 

the 241Am might behave independently when its mass is about 1% or more of the total mass 

of the matrix; when converted to activity the 1% mass criterion occurs approximately when the 

activity ratios of 241Am and 239Pu is equal, so for simplicity the 1:1 activity ratio was used. 

[18] Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2007.

It is standard industry practice to assume the long-term retention of particles in the lung is 

related to the physical and chemical properties of the particle matrix. For example, if the 

particle is plutonium oxide with small quantities of a contaminant like 241Am (which is 

normally much more soluble than plutonium oxide), the 241Am is assumed to be trapped in 

the particle matrix and exhibit the same retention as the matrix. However, once the 241Am

becomes a major component of the particle, it tends to assume its own solubility rather than 

that of the matrix. Because the point at which this occurs is unknown, it was estimated that 

the 241Am might behave independently when its mass is about 1% or more of the total mass 

of the matrix; when converted to activity the 1% mass criterion occurs approximately when the 

activity ratios of 241Am and 239Pu is equal, so for simplicity the 1:1 activity ratio was used. 

[19] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

In cases where there are numerous chest counts the preferred approach is to model the data 

directly rather than use the methods given in this TIB. This approach is preferred because 

data specific to the individual will provide the most accurate estimate of dose and the Rule 

prioritizes the use of personal information, when available, over all other information.

[20] Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2007.

Rather than try to determine a distribution of adjustment factors among the various cases, the 

highest adjustment factor for the given scenario was chosen. Because the dose adjustment 

factor is the maximum, or upper bound, no additional uncertainty is required. 

[21] Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicist. January 2007.

Coworker data are simply another method of assessing dose to an individual, so the same 

methods of assessment apply.

[22] Falk, Roger B. ORAU Team. Senior Life Scientist. January 2007.

The calculations in this section were performed by Roger Falk.

[23] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

These data are unpublished.

[24] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

In other words, the best model is assumed to be the model that predicts lung retention and 

urinary excretion that best agrees with that observed.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 19 of 56

[25] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The 5 μm AMDA is an ICRP 66 default value. The density of 11.5 g/mL is the value given in 

the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics for plutonium oxide.

[26] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

Adjustment factors are applied to calculations based on Type S rather than the development of 

a new model.

[27] Brackett, Elizabeth M. ORAU Team. Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

In order to develop adjustment factors, something needs to be calculated on which to apply 

these factors. The Type S model is used because it is closest to this longer-retained material.

[28] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007.

The point here is that the doses are being calculated with an empirical adjustment of the 

standard ICRP models and that these models are not being modified.

[29] LaBone, Thomas R. ORAU Team. Deputy Principal Internal Dosimetrist. January 2007. 

Plutonium oxide (especially the high-fired variety) is one of the most insoluble forms of 

plutonium (ICRP 1994, personal discussion with C.W. Sill) typically encountered in the 

workplace. However, it is not feasible to exclude the possibility that soluble forms of plutonium 

might become more insoluble over time (La Bone, T. R. and W. M. Findley 1999; J. C. Moody, 

G. N. Stradling, and A. R. Britcher 1994). Therefore, the TIB is assumed to apply if the form of 

the plutonium is not known. This is used as an additional possibility of material type; all 

possibilities are calculated and the type resulting in the largest dose is applied to be favorable 

to the claimant.

[30] Allen, David E. NIOSH. Dose Reconstruction Team Leader. January 2007.

The calculations in this section were performed by David E. Allen.

[31] Falk, Roger B. and Bihl, Donald E. ORAU Team. Principal Health Physicists. January 2007.

The values in these tables were calculated by Roger Falk and Don Bihl using the methods 

described in Attachment B.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 20 of 56

REFERENCES

Bihl, D. E., T. P. Lynch, E. H. Carbaugh, M. J. Sula, 1988, Methods to Improve Intake Monitoring for 

Freshly Separated, Poorly Transported Plutonium, PNL-6695, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Carbaugh, E. H., D. E. Bihl, M. J. Sula, 1991, “Long-term Follow-up of HAN-1, an Acute Plutonium 

Oxide Inhalation Case,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 38, Nos. 1-3, pp. 99-104.

Carbaugh, E. H., and T. R. La Bone, 2003, “Two Case Studies of Highly Insoluble Plutonium 

Inhalation with Implications for Bioassay,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 105, Nos. 1-4, 

pp. 133-138.

Filipy, R. E., 2004, in Annual Report of the U. S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Eds: S. M. 

Ehrhart, R. E. Filipy, USTUR-0197-04, Washington State University, Tri-Cities, Richland, 

Washington. 

Guilmette, R. A., et al., 1994, “Intake Assessment for Workers Who Have Inhaled Pu-238 Aerosols,” 

Radiation Protection Dosimetry, (53) 1-4, pp 127-131.

Hahn, F. F., S. A. Romanov, R. A. Guilmette, A. P. Nifatov, Y. V. Zaytseva, J. H. Diel, S. W. Allen, and 

Y. V. Lyovkina, 2003, “Distribution of Plutonium Particles in the Lungs of Mayak Workers,” 

Radiation Protection Dosimetry, volume 105, number 1/4, pp. 81–84. 

Hahn, F. F., S. A. Romanov, R. A. Guilmette, A. P. Nifatov, J. H. Diel, and Y. Zaytseva, 2004, 

“Plutonium Microdistribution in the Lungs of Mayak Workers,” Radiation Research, Vol. 161, 

pp. 568-581.

Hickman, A. W., et al., 1995, “Application of a Canine Pu-238 Biokinetics/Dosimetry Model to Human 

Bioassay Data,” Health Physics, (68) 3, pp 359-370.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1979, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides 

by Workers, Publication 30, Part 1, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1994, Human Respiratory Tract Model 

for Radiological Protection, Publication 66, Pergamon Elsevier Science Inc., Tarrytown, New 

York. 

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 1997, Individual Monitoring for Internal 

Exposure of Workers, Publication 78, Pergamon Elsevier Science Inc., Tarrytown, New York.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2001, The ICRP Database of Dose 

Coefficients: Workers and Members of the Public, Version 2.0.1, CD-1, Pergamon Press, 

Oxford, England.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2002, “Supporting Guidance 3: Guide for 

the Practical Application of the ICRP Human Respiratory Tract Model,” Annals of the ICRP, 

Pergamon Elsevier Science Inc., Tarrytown, New York.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 21 of 56

James, A. C., et al., 2003, “USTUR Case 0259 Whole Body Donation: A Comprehensive Test of the 

Current ICRP Models for the Behavior of Inhaled Pu-238 Oxide Ceramic Particles,” Health 

Physics, (84) 1, p 2-33.

James, A. C., 2004, User Manual for IMBA ExpertTM, USDOE-Edition (Phase II) [or other editions], 

Appendix D, “Example Bioassay Cases,” ACJ & Associates, pp. 83-93.

James, A. C., 2005, Proposal to Manage and Operate the United States Transuranium and Uranium 

Registries, Appendix C. “Progress on Modeling Whole-Body Cases,” Washington State 

University, Tri-Cities, Richland, Washington.

Kathren, R. L., and J. F. McInroy, 1991, “Comparison of Systemic Plutonium Deposition Estimates 

from Urinalysis and Autopsy Data in Five Whole-Body Donors,” Health Physics, Vol. 60, No. 4, 

pp. 481-488.

Khokhryakov, V. F., K. G. Suslova, S. A. Vostrotin, S. A. Romanov, K. F. Eckerman, M. P. 

Krahenbuhl, and S. C. Miller, 2005, “Adaptation of the ICRP Publication 66 Respiratory Tract 

Model to Data on Plutonium Biokinetics for Mayak Workers,” Health Physics, Vol. 88, No. 2, 

pp. 125-132.

La Bone, T. R., and W. M. Findley, 1999, Evaluation of Savannah River Site Internal Dosimetry 

Registry Case 498 (U), ESH-HPT-99-0244, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, 

South Carolina.

Mann, J. R., and R. A. Kirchner, 1967, "Evaluation of Lung Burden Following Acute Inhalation 

Exposure to Highly Insoluble PuO2," Health Physics, Vol. 13, pp. 877-882. 

McInroy, J. F., R. L. Kathren, and M. J. Swint, 1989, “Distribution of Plutonium and Americium in 

Whole Bodies Donated to the United States Transuranium Registry,” Radiation Protection 

Dosimetry, Vol. 26, pp. 151-158.

Morgan, A., A. Black, D. Knight, and S. R. Moores, 1988, “The Effect of Firing Temperature on the 

Lung Retention and Translocation of Pu Following the Inhalation of 238PuO2 and 239PuO2 by 

CBA/H Mice,” Health Physics, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 301-310.

Newman, L. S., M. M. Mroz, A. Ruttenber, and A. James, 2005, “Lung Fibrosis in Plutonium Workers,” 

Radiation Research, Vol. 164, No. 2, pp. 123-131.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Technical Basis Document for the Rocky 

Flats Plant – Occupational Internal Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0011-5 PC-1, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee. 

Romanov, S. A., R. A. Guilmette, F. F. Hahn, A. P. Nifatov, Y. V. Zaytseva, and Y. V. Lyovkina, 2003, 

“Modifying the ICRP 66 Dosimetry Model Based on Results Obtained from Mayak Plutonium 

Workers,” Radiation Protection Dosimetry, volume 105, number 1/4, pp. 85–90.

Spitz, H. B., and B. Robinson, 1981, “Deposition of Plutonium in the Lungs of a Worker Following an 

Accidental Inhalation Exposure,” in Actinides in Man and Animals: Proceedings of the 

Snowbird Actinide Workshop, 15-17 October 1979, Ed. M. E. Wrenn, RD Press, Salt Lake 

City, Utah, pp. 114-135.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 22 of 56

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 1 of 11 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

A1.0 Cases From the Rocky Flats Plant......................................................................................... 22

A2.0 Cases from Other Sites.......................................................................................................... 29

A2.1 United States Transuranium and Uranium Registry (USTUR) Donor Cases............... 31

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Solubility parameter comparison for SRS 498........................................................................ 31

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 101............................................... 23

A-2 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 207............................................... 24

A-3 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 825............................................... 25

A-4 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 872............................................... 26

A-5 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 934............................................... 26

A-6 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 1400............................................. 27

A-7 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 700............................................... 28

A-8 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 725............................................... 29

A-9 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 1228............................................. 30

A-10 Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case HAN-1 .................................................. 31

A1.0

The following paragraphs discuss nine cases from RFP [23]. For these cases, the standard Type S 

model is compared to a custom individual-specific model that modifies mechanical clearance 

parameters and dissolution parameters. The custom parameters were selected such that reasonable 

fits to the data were obtained and intakes calculated from urine and chest data were approximately 

equal [24]. For the custom fits, the particle size was 5 μm AMAD with a density of 11.5 g/mL for all 

RFP cases (and HAN-1 [25]). For the 1965 plutonium fire cases, custom fits were also determined for 

a particle size of 1 μm AMAD to assess the impact of varying the particle size. For all RFP cases, the 

initial activity of 241Pu was assumed based on the general mixture of plutonium handled at Rocky 

Flats.

CASES FROM THE ROCKY FLATS PLANT
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 23 of 56

RFP cases 101, 207, 825, 872, 934, and 1400 were exposed to plutonium from a fire on October 15, 

1965, in the coolant line of a lathe used to machine plutonium metal (Mann and Kirchner 1967). The 

fire started when a maintenance worker was trying to clear plutonium chips clogging the coolant line, 

first by using carbon tetrachloride to flush the line, and then by using a center punch with force to 

dislodge the chips. A spark from the center punch ignited the plutonium-carbon tetrachloride mixture, 

which caused a fire that quickly breached containment and created airborne contamination (particle 

size = 0.32-μm mass median diameter) that spread throughout Building 776/777. There was no air 

monitoring alarm system and the building fire alarm was not activated until approximately 15 min after 

the onset of the fire. The six cases discussed here had no significant previous plutonium intakes and 

no subsequent intakes. They have modern (post-1990) lung counts and plutonium urinalysis data. 

Cases 825, 872, and 934 had diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) chelation treatments; 

cases 101, 207, and 1400 did not. 

RFP 101 

RFP 101 was an assembler about 50 feet from the origin of the fire, but did not smell the smoke. He 

was notified of the fire, donned a respirator, and left the area. He did not receive DTPA treatment. 

Figure A-1 shows plutonium lung activity calculated from 241Am lung count measurements and fitted in 

the Integrated Modules for Bioassay Assessment (IMBA) computer code for the standard Type S 

model and the custom fit for which the assessed intake based on lung data was approximately equal 

to the assessed intake based on urine data.

Case RFP 101

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-1. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case RFP 

101. 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 2 of 11
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 24 of 56

RFP 207

RFP 207 was a production machinist in the building (temporarily assigned from depleted uranium 

operations). He was not near the fire and did not see or smell smoke. He evacuated the building 

when notified but did not know why. Later, he was discovered to be contaminated. He did not receive 

DTPA treatment (see Figure A-2).

Case RFP 207

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-2. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 207. 

RFP 825

RFP 825, a quality control engineer in an office adjacent to the metal production area, smelled the 

smoke but thought it was welding fumes. He left the office and unknowingly went toward the fire 

location. When he saw the fire, he donned a respirator and exited the area. Case RFP 825 was 

administered 4 g of DTPA, starting on October 18, 1965 (see Figure A-3).

RFP 872

RFP 872 was the maintenance supervisor in the vicinity. He smelled smoke for about 2 min, went to 

the fire, donned a respirator, and exited the area. He was administered 5 g of DTPA starting on 

October 15, 1965 (see Figure A-4).

RFP 934

RFP 934 was the maintenance worker at the origin of the fire. He was wearing a respirator at the 

onset of the fire. He was administered 5 g of DTPA starting on October 15, 1965 (see Figure A-5).

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 3 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 25 of 56

RFP 1400

RFP 1400 was an electrician apprentice at a desk in the production area. He did not receive DTPA 

treatment (see Figure A-6). 

Case RFP 825

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-3. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 825. 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 4 of 11
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 26 of 56

Case RFP 872

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

 .1

Figure A-4. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 872. 

Case RFP 934

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

 .1

Figure A-5. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 934. 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 5 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 27 of 56

Case RFP 1400

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-6. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 1400. 

RFP 700

RFP 700 was a laboratory foreman who received an inhalation intake on August 22, 1971, from the 

spontaneous combustion of plutonium chips with carbon tetrachloride residue in a sample can in a 

laboratory in Building 771. The double can pressurized and vented into the laboratory. RFP 700 was 

a responder to the fire and entered the laboratory wearing a chemical-oxygen respirator to clean up 

the mess and collect the residue. However, one strap on the respirator was broken, resulting in an 

ineffective seal. The initial concentration of americium was 480 ppm. Extensive DTPA was 

administered to the worker starting on August 30, 1971. RFP 700 received a skull count on April 9, 

2002, coupled with a lung count. The ratio of normalized skull/lung 241Am counts was 0.15, which 

indicates that the skeletal contribution to the chest count was reasonably low and did not account for 

the persistence of 241Am in the chest (see Figure A-7).

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23]

Page 6 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 28 of 56

Case RFP 700

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-7. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 700. 

RFP 725

RFP 725 was a firefighter who helped control a plutonium fire on May 11, 1969, in Building 76/77. 

Assigned to the roof of the building, he supervised two crews spraying water on the roof to keep it 

from breaching. He did not wear a respirator initially. Contamination apparently came out of the 

plenums without smoke; the roof was not breached. RFP 725 was highly contaminated and received 

17 g of DTPA treatments, which had no apparent effect. This indicates that there was essentially no 

initial soluble content of the plutonium. The particle size is not known. The initial concentration of 

241Am was 1,000 ppm; the initial amount of 241Pu was assumed to be 0.5% by weight. He had no 

previous or subsequent plutonium exposures (see Figure A-8).

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG 

Page 4 of 10

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23] 

Page 7 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 29 of 56

Case RFP 725

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-8. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 725. 

RFP 1228

RFP 1228, a process operator in Building 771, was exposed to plutonium, probably oxide, from a 

glove failure on July 30, 1975. He was not wearing a respirator during the incident. He received 4 g 

of DTPA treatments. The particle size is not known. The initial concentration of 241Am was 

1,050 ppm; the initial amount of 241Pu was assumed to be 0.5% by weight. He had no previous 

recorded plutonium intakes and no subsequent intakes (see Figure A-9). This case represents avidly 

retained plutonium in the lung not resulting from a plutonium fire, but probably from slowly oxidized 

plutonium.

A2.0

HAN-1 

CASES FROM OTHER SITES

HAN-1 has been described in detail in Spitz and Robinson (1981), Carbaugh, Bihl, and Sula (1991), 

and Carbaugh and La Bone (2003). The worker was exposed acutely on May 23, 1978, to plutonium 

oxide that had been calcined at 600°C. The isotopic composition, including 241Pu, was measured on a 

sample of the source. Particle size information was not obtained. DTPA was administered on days 0, 

2, 3, 7, and 10 after intake, but was determined to be ineffective due to the highly insoluble nature of 

the plutonium. Numerous chest counts were obtained from day 0 through day 6,639 after intake. The 

chest counts were corrected for chest wall thickness as measured by ultrasound techniques. Activity 

in the skeleton, as measured by skull counting, was usually not detectable or just slightly above 

detection; hence, correction of chest counts for skeletal activity was made only in the last three 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23] 

Page 8 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 30 of 56

measurements. The worker had no previous confirmed intakes of plutonium or 241Am. Figure A-10 

shows the plutonium lung content for case HAN-1 as measured by 241Am and custom-fitted in IMBA 

Case RFP 1228

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

.1

Figure A-9. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

RFP 1228. 

using parameter values in Attachment B. From 1 d after the accident through 18 years, very little 

plutonium/americium has been cleared. In his 2003 assessment of the case, Carbaugh and La Bone 

(2003) modeled lung retention as a single component with an 80-year clearance half-time. A. C. 

James modeled this case as an example for the IMBA user’s manual (James 2004). James

concluded that for this case both “the absorption characteristics of the plutonium particle matrix and 

the mechanical elimination rate of particles deposited in the ‘deep lung’ of this individual worker differ 

substantially from the standard ICRP default values.” James fit the lung data using 0.5-AMAD particle 

size, a slow absorption rate, Ss, of 2 × 10-5/d, and reduced mechanical clearance of 0.0001/d for AI1 

to bb1 and AI2 to bb1. James retained the insoluble plutonium value of 0.0001 for f1, but in a later 

personal discussion agreed that f1 of 0.00001 would be better for Type SS material. However, to 

make this fit, James ignored all counts in the last 1,500 d.

SRS 498

SRS 498 has been described in detail in La Bone and Findley (1999) and Carbaugh and La Bone 

(2003). In September 1999, the worker was exposed to plutonium metal that had oxidized at ambient 

temperatures for about a year due to a defective weld on the stainless-steel storage container. Only 

the oxide form of the plutonium had escaped through the hole in the weld and become airborne. 

One g of DTPA was given shortly after the intake. The isotopic composition of the material, including 

241Pu, had been determined by mass spectrometry and was decay-corrected to the time of the intake. 

These isotopic ratios were verified by alpha spectrometry measurements on material obtained from 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23] 

Page 9 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 31 of 56

the air sampler used to monitor the operation. Particle size information was not obtained; however, 

the material from the air filter underwent in vitro lung solubility analysis at the Lovelace Respiratory 

Research Institute. Table A-11 (reprinted from Carbaugh and La Bone [2003]) lists results of the in 

vitro solubility analysis and the fit to the in vivo 241

Am lung counts. The model based on the lung 

counts also fit well with the urine and fecal samples. As with HAN-1 and most of the RFP cases, the 

standard Type S absorption model did not fit the long-term lung burden values well.

HAN-1

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1 10 100 1000 10000

Time after Intake (days)

Pu Activity in Lungs (pCi)

Measured

Type S

Custom

Figure A-10. Comparison of Type S and custom models for Case 

HAN-1. 

Table A-1. Solubility parameter comparison for SRS 498. 

Type

Fraction rapidly 

dissolved, fr

Rapid solubility 

rate, sr (d-1)

Slow solubility 

rate, ss (d-1)

In vitro study of Pu oxide from air sample 0.0007 1.56 1.3 × 10-5

Parameters inferred from bioassay 0.002 9.9 9.7 × 10-6

Standard ICRP (1994) Type S parameters 0.001 100 1.0 × 10-4

A2.1 UNITED STATES TRANSURANIUM AND URANIUM REGISTRY (USTUR) DONOR 

CASES

All of the following descriptions are from James (2005). USTUR has performed tissue analyses and 

reported on six whole-body donor cases that demonstrate larger activities in the lung at death than 

predicted by the Type S absorption model. A brief description of each case follows. Filipy (2004) and 

James (2005) concluded that all six cases show the inhaled plutonium was substantially less soluble 

than is assumed by ICRP for its recommended ‘Type S’ particle absorption behavior. Use of the 

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG 

Page 9 of 10

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23] 

Page 10 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 32 of 56

ICRP ‘default’ absorption rate resulted in predicted lung burdens that were, on average, 18% of the 

measured burdens at death (range = 2-49%).

TUR 0193

Case TUR 0193 worked at LANL for 37 years. His highest intakes of plutonium occurred by inhalation 

during his first year of employment while he was converting plutonium oxide to plutonium fluoride in a 

chemical hood. The original isotopic ratios had to be assumed; the final plutonium activities were, of 

course, measured directly in lung tissue.

TUR 0208

Case TUR 0208 also worked at LANL for 37 years. His most probable intake of plutonium by 

inhalation occurred during his first year of employment when he worked in a plutonium reduction and 

dry chemistry operation. This case was reported by McInroy, Kathren, and Swint (1989).

TUR 0213

Case TUR 0213 worked as a chemist at LANL for 33 years. He had potential for intakes throughout 

most of his career and had five recorded potential inhalation accidents. The nature of the plutonium 

for these accidents has not been found (Kathren and McInroy 1991).

TUR 0242

Case TUR 0242 worked as a chemical operator at LANL for 26 years. He was involved in at least six 

incidents that could have resulted in acute inhalations of plutonium.

TUR 0425

Case TUR 0425 worked at RFP (but is not one of the RFP cases discussed above) for 24 years and 

was involved in several incidents with airborne plutonium, personal contamination, and minor wounds 

during his first decade of employment. A detailed review of the case was reported by Filipy (2004).

TUR 0744

Case TUR 0744 worked at RFP (but is not one of the RFP cases discussed above) for 32 years and 

was involved in as many as 17 incidents, including two plutonium-contaminated wounds and exposure 

to a plutonium fire. A detailed review of the case was reported by Filipy (2004).

ATTACHMENT A

CASES DEMONSTRATING LONG-TERM RETENTION OF PLUTONIUM IN THE LUNG [23] 

Page 11 of 11 
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 33 of 56

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 1 of 7

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

B-1 Comparison of projected plutonium lung content for 10 design cases and standard Type S 

plutonium for acute intake of 1 Bq and particle size of 5 μm AMAD........................................

PAGE

36

B-2 Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for acute intake............................................. 37

B-3 Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for 30-yr chronic intake................................. 38

Once inhaled, an aerosol can be removed from the respiratory tract by mechanical transport and by 

dissolution and subsequent absorption into the bloodstream. These removal processes are 

independent and competitive (i.e., a particle of material can be dissolving as it is being moved in the 

respiratory tract). It has long been known that some inhaled aerosols, like those of high-fired 

plutonium oxide, can be tenaciously retained in portions of the respiratory tract. The ICRP 

Publication 66 HRTM attempts to account for the retention of such aerosols by decreasing the 

dissolution rate of the plutonium (ICRP 1994). In the absence of case-specific information, Type S 

dissolution parameters (“S” for slow dissolution) will result in the longest retention of material in the 

respiratory tract. Note that the ICRP has not recommended generic changes in the mechanical 

transport parameters of the HRTM to account for increased retention time.

In the last few years, a number of papers have described the retention of plutonium in the respiratory 

tract that is not adequately modeled with Type S dissolution parameters. Carbaugh and La Bone 

(2003) describe occupational intakes of 239Pu at Hanford and SRS that were retained in the 

respiratory tract much longer than predicted by the standard Type S parameters. A series of recent 

papers by researchers from Russia and the United States discussed the retention of plutonium in the 

respiratory tract of workers from the Mayak Production Association that is much longer than that 

expected for Type S plutonium (Hahn et al. 2003; Hahn et al. 2004; Romanov et al. 2003; 

Khokhryakov et al. 2005). Finally, a number of workers occupationally exposed to 239Pu at RFP 

exhibited unexpectedly long-term retention in the respiratory tract (Mann and Kirchner 1967). For 

convenience, plutonium that displays this type of behavior is referred to as “Type SS” plutonium.

To calculate the equivalent dose to the respiratory tract and systemic organs resulting from an intake 

of Type SS plutonium, one must use a biokinetic model that accurately depicts the transport and 

retention of the plutonium in the tissues. Because the ICRP has not published recommendations on 

how to modify the HRTM to account for Type SS behavior, the authors of the papers cited above have 

used the following types of modifications to model Type SS behavior.

• The dissolution rate of the material is decreased beyond that of Type S plutonium. This 

general approach, which can be based on in vitro dissolution studies and animal studies, is 

endorsed by the ICRP even though it has not provided specific parameters for Type SS 

plutonium (ICRP 2002).

• The mechanical transport rate constants are reduced, which slows the mechanical clearance 

of particles from the respiratory tract.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 34 of 56

• The bound state of the HRTM, which is somewhat of a vestigial organ in the model,1

During the development of this document, various combinations of these techniques were used in an 

attempt to achieve an acceptable fit to plutonium activities derived from chest count data to plutonium 

activities derived from nine RFP cases and one Hanford case (referred to as the “design cases”) that 

displayed Type SS behavior. Details of these efforts are presented in Attachment A. The original 

goal was to propose parameters for a generic Type SS model, but several difficulties were 

encountered that made this impractical. First, bioassay data from the design cases could not be 

adequately fit simply by decreasing the dissolution rate of the plutonium. However, combining the 

slow dissolution rate observed in cases at SRS with extremely slow mechanical clearance (e.g., the 

clearance half-life in the AI3 compartment is increased by a factor of 100) resulted in acceptable fits to 

the design cases. The problem with this approach is that a basic assumption of the HRTM is that 

mechanical transport rates are independent of the solubility of the material. In other words, there is 

no technical basis for decreasing mechanical transport rates across the board for a specific chemical 

form of plutonium.

is used to 

prolong retention of dissolved plutonium in the respiratory tract by delaying its absorption into 

the bloodstream.

2

The Dose Adjustment Factor

 Researchers analyzing bioassay data from Mayak workers used the bound state 

of the HRTM to achieve acceptable fits, but there are conceptual problems associated with requiring 

the plutonium to dissolve before it can be strongly retained. The researchers acknowledged this by 

stating, “So, although the present approach has shown adequate mathematical flexibility to be able to 

handle the new data, it is probably not the best way to interpret the mechanisms by which these 

particles are handled in the lung” (Romanov et al. 2003). In the end, we concluded that there is 

insufficient information available to recommend a generic modification to the HRTM suitable for 

evaluating cases that exhibit Type SS retention. For this reason, this TIB recommends an alternate 

approach to modeling Type SS plutonium cases, referred to as the “Dose Adjustment Factor.” This 

approach, which is discussed below, enables the evaluation of Type SS plutonium cases without 

explicitly making generic changes to the HRTM [26].

For a given acute inhalation intake of Type S 239Pu, there is an initial deposition qs(0) in the lung and a 

lung content qs(t) at some later time t. The fraction rs(t) of the initial deposition in the lung is given by: 

Given an appropriate biokinetic model (see below), a similar function rss(t) can be derived for Type SS 

239Pu. It is assumed that qs(0) = qss(0) for a given aerosol (i.e., the pattern of initial deposition in the 

compartments of the respiratory tract is the same for aerosols of both materials). Now, assume that 

 

1. In the sense that it was defined in ICRP (1994) but never really used. 2. While modifying the mechanical transport parameters is acceptable in an appropriate individual case, it is another 

situation altogether to propose a generic model with those same modifications.

(0)

( ) s(t)

s

s

q

q t

r =

ATTACHMENT B

Derivation and Use of Dose Adjustment Factors

Page 3 of 7

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 2 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 35 of 56

the annual equivalent dose Hs(t) to the lung from an inhalation intake of Type S 239Pu from t-1 year to t

year is proportional3

tH kq t)()(s = s

to the lung content qs(t) at t year:

where k is a time-independent constant specific to 239Pu. The dose adjustment factor F(t) is defined 

as follows:

)(

)(

)0(

)(

)(

)0( )(

tr

tr

q

tq

tq

q tF

s

ss

ss

ss

s

s

 =



 









 



 =

To adjust Hs(t) to get Hss(t) one simply multiplies by the dose adjustment factor:

The implicit assumption is that equal lung contents of Types S and SS 239Pu at a given time produce 

the same equivalent dose rate to the lung at that time.

If the Type S lung dose was calculated from a chest count, the application of the adjustment factor will 

increase the implied Type SS lung content so that it is inconsistent with the original chest count. If a 

chest count at time T must be held constant, the basis of the dose adjustment factor must be 

converted from equal intakes at t=0 to equal chest burdens at t=T: 

Thus, to make the observed and predicted chest counts agree, the Type SS lung dose must be 

adjusted downward by the adjustment factor for the year of the chest count used to determine the 

intake. To ensure that the doses to the lung are not underestimated, the year of the chest count 

should be rounded down to the nearest whole year when selecting the factor.

 

3. The dose is actually proportional to the area under the retention curve. This is a good assumption if the retention curve 

for the lung is fairly flat over the period in question (1 yr), which it is for Types S and SS plutonium.

)( )(

)0(

)0(

)(

)0(

)(

)(

)0( )()( kq t

Tq

q

q

Tq

q

tq

tq

q tH kq t ss

ss

ss

s

s

ss

ss

s

s

ss s  =



 









 









 









 



 =

)( )(

)(

)(

)( )()( kq t

Tq

tq

tq

Tq tH kq t ss

ss

ss

s

s

ss s  =



 









 



 =

)( )(

)( )()( kq t

TF

tF tH kq t ss = s = ss

)( )0(

)(

)(

)0( )()()()( kq t

q

tq

tq

q tFtHtH kq t ss

ss

ss

s

s

ss s s  =



 









 



 = =

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 3 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 36 of 56

Derivation of the Dose Adjustment Factor

The derivation of lung dose adjustment factors is based on an empirical comparison of the plutonium 

retained in the lungs for 10 well-documented cases involving acute intakes of plutonium (nine from 

RFP and one from Hanford) in relation to the amount projected for each case using the default Type S 

model for the same intake. These cases are discussed in Attachment A.

The data for the design cases were custom modeled in the IMBA computer code to get a curve fit to 

plutonium lung data that could be used to generate, analytically, the plutonium retention in the lungs 

at any time and for any intake scenario using the IMBA Intake-to-Bioassay feature. For the given 

intake scenario and the same intake, the plutonium lung retention was calculated for the default ICRP 

Type S model [27]. The annual dose adjustment factors are the ratios of the plutonium lung 

retentions projected annually for the actual case to those projected for the default Type S model. 

Projections of the retained plutonium lung content are shown in Figure B-1 for the 10 design cases, 

for an acute intake of 1 Bq plutonium with a particle size of 5 μm AMAD. For reference, the 

theoretical curve for Type S plutonium is also shown. In relation to Type S, the design cases tend to 

exhibit a higher retention of plutonium in the lungs, especially after the first several years, with a 

similar flatness of the retention curves after 10 years. Two cases represent a similar upper bound, 

one from RFP (RFP 872) and one from Hanford (HAN-1).

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time after Intake (years)

Fraction of Intake Retained in Lung 

Figure B-1. Comparison of projected plutonium lung content for 10 design cases and 

standard Type S plutonium for acute intake of 1 Bq and particle size of 5 μm AMAD. The 

two highest solid lines are HAN-1 and RFP 872 and the lowest solid line is standard 

Type S material.

ATTACHMENT B

Derivation and Use of Dose Adjustment Factors

Page 4 of 8

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 4 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 37 of 56

The dose adjustment factor is the ratio of the plutonium retention for the highest of the design cases 

(RFP 872 or HAN-1) and the plutonium retention predicted by the default Type S model any year after 

an acute intake or start of a chronic intake. Figures B-2 and B-3 show these ratios for the 10 design 

cases for acute and 30-year chronic intakes, respectively. Cases RFP 872 and HAN-1 consistently 

represented the upper bound for the design cases. 

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time after Intake (y)

Ratio of Pu Retentions in Lung

Lung Dose Adjustment Factors: Acute Intake

Figure B-2. Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for acute intake. The two 

highest solid lines are HAN-1 and RFP 872.

For the derivation of lung dose adjustment factors in Attachment D, Standard HRTM Type S 

parameters for a 5-μm AMAD aerosol were used except for those listed below for the two bounding 

cases, HAN-1 and RFP 872:

HAN-1 

Particle Density 11.5 g/mL

Particle Size 5 μm AMAD

Particle Transport AI2->bb1 = 0.0003

AI3->bb1 = 1 × 10-6

AI3->LNTH = 1 × 10-6

AI2/AI = 0.4

AI3/AI = 0.6

Absorption Sp = 0.16

St = 5 × 10-6

RFP 872

Particle Density 11.5 g/mL

Particle Size 5 μm AMAD

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJ USTMENT FACTORS

Page 4 of 7

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 5 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 38 of 56

0

1

10

100

1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time after Start of Intake (y)

Ratio of Pu Retentions in Lung

Lung Dose Adjustment Factors: 30-y Chronic Intake

Figure B-3. Lung dose adjustment factors for design cases for 30-year chronic 

intake. The two highest solid lines are HAN-1 and RFP 872.

Particle Transport AI2->bb1 = 0.003

AI3->bb1 = 1 × 10-6

AI3->LNTH = 1 × 10-6

AI2/AI = 0.3

AI3/AI = 0.7

Absorption Sp = 0.27

St = 1 × 10-5

These parameters were used in IMBA to generate rss(t) at various times after intake for HAN-1 and 

RFP 872. It must be emphasized that these biokinetic models were selected simply to match 

empirical lung contents and urinary excretion and were not used to calculate equivalent doses to the 

lung [28].

Finally, IMBA was used to calculate rs(t) for standard Type S material, and then F(t) was calculated for 

both cases. The higher of the two values of F(t) for any given time and intake pattern was selected as 

the dose adjustment factor. This process was repeated for various chronic intake scenarios to create 

the tables in Attachment D.

Discussion of Applicability and Limitations

The slower removal of plutonium from the lung could be related to the activity or mass of plutonium in 

the lungs. The Mayak autoradiography studies (Hahn et al. 2003) show a correlation between 

radiation-induced pulmonary scars and the longer retention of the plutonium, which would be 

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJ USTMENT FACTORS

Page 6 of 8

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 6 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 39 of 56

consistent with an activity-threshold effect.4

In mice, in the same experiment mentioned above, a direct comparison was made between 238PuO2

and 239PuO2 fired at the same temperatures. The slow removal lung component in the two-component 

model was significantly faster and retained quantities in the liver and skeleton were greater for 

238PuO2 for all temperature groups (Morgan 1988). The authors are not aware of any intakes of 

238PuO2 that demonstrate very-long-term retention in the lung comparable to the cases discussed in 

Attachment A.

 Occupational exposures in U.S. cases generally resulted 

in smaller intakes than those observed for the Mayak workers, but evidence has been found for 

pneumosclerosis in some U.S. workers with lung doses over ~10 Sv (Newman et al. 2005). Because 

the existence of an activity or mass threshold effect is uncertain, it is favorable to the claimant to 

assume that the phenomenon applies to workers with smaller intakes of plutonium for whom bioassay 

data are insufficient for the dose reconstructor to create individual-specific models. All the U.S. 

human cases involve plutonium oxide, with the exception of USTUR cases, for which the chemical 

form of intakes was often not known. The plutonium usually had been exposed to high temperatures, 

but the SRS case and one of the RFP cases involved plutonium that had been oxidized under 

ambient temperatures. In mice, retention in the lung was not significantly different for 239PuO2 fired at 

550°C, 750°C, 1,000°C, or 1,250°C (Morgan et al. 1988). Conversely, not all intakes of plutonium 

oxide have shown lung retention inconsistent with the standard Type S model. Nevertheless, 

because of the uncertainty in the understanding of the nature of the material that results in SS 

behavior in the lung, it was considered favorable to the claimant to assume that all plutonium oxide 

could produce SS behavior.

Because the 241Am chest-count data in the design cases show similar results to the plutonium-in-lung 

autopsy data, it is assumed that when 241Am is a small component by mass of the inhaled mixture or 

grows in from 241Pu while in the lung, it behaves in the lung in the same manner as the plutonium. 

Stated another way, when the mixture of plutonium isotopes and 241Am is mostly 239Pu by mass, the 

Type SS dose adjustment factors apply to all components of the mixture [29].

 

4. During personal communications with Dr. Raymond Guilmette, he speculated that scar tissue caused by agents other 

than radiation could also become sites where particles might be sequestered. 

ATTACHMENT B

DERIVATION AND USE OF DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS

Page 7 of 7
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 40 of 56

ATTACHMENT C

DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR [30]

Page 1 of 4

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

C-1 Comparison of lung and liver estimates to autopsy data ........................................................ 43

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

C-1 Comparison of urinary excretion for a 50-year chronic intake................................................. 41

C-2 Comparison of urinary excretion following an acute intake..................................................... 41

C-3 Comparison of urinary excretion following a chronic intake .................................................... 42

Type SS material is absorbed into the blood stream at a slower rate than Type S material. This 

causes less material to be deposited in the systemic organs, as well as less plutonium being 

eliminated through the urine. Per unit intake, the difference between predicted urine content for Type 

S and Type SS varies considerably. This makes determining a correction factor difficult because the 

value of the correction factor is dependent on the time after intake and the length of exposure for each 

urine sample result

First, a constant chronic excretion of activity per day was assumed to occur for 50 years. For this 

scenario, the largest difference between the Type S, the HAN-1 case, and the RFP 872 case occurred 

at approximately 6.5 years after the beginning of the intake. This difference, when rounded up, was a 

factor of 4.0. Figure C-1 provides a graph of the daily plutonium intake per unit excretion for Type S, 

HAN-1, RFP 872, and the adjusted Type S intake. It can be seen in the figure, that the intakes based 

on Type S clearance parameters are well below those of the intakes predicted using HAN-1 for the 

entire intake period. When the Type S intakes are adjusted upward by the factor of 4, the new intake 

projection figure shows that the estimated intakes over all time periods are equal to or greater than 

those of HAN-1.

. Therefore, the approach adopted here is to determine a single bounding 

correction factor to correct intakes determined from urinalysis. This correction factor is based on the 

clearance parameters developed using the slowest clearing design cases (HAN-1 and RFP 872). The 

intakes per unit excretion in the urine at various times using the Type S model, the HAN-1 case, and 

the RFP 872 case were then determined and compared. 

The intake adjustment was also evaluated to determine the effect on an acute intake scenario. The 

results of this analysis are provided in Figure C-2. While the chronic exposure scenario produced 

adjustment factors that are fairly consistent throughout the duration of exposure, the acute exposure 

scenario does not. In fact, the acute scenario produces a correction factor greater than 4 for a short 

period of time after the acute intake. However, the factor is below 4 up to 214 d post-intake (Figure 

C-3). 

It is unlikely that a known acute exposure incident would be detected by urinalysis 6 months after the 

intake. For incidents identified in the field, it is common practice that urine samples would be 

collected shortly after exposure.
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 41 of 56

 

days post start of intake

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Daily intake rate/ unit excretion

1e+2

1e+3

1e+4

1e+5

1e+6

HAN-1

Type S 

Type S*4.0 

RF 872

Figure C-1. Comparison of urinary excretion for a 50-year chronic intake. 

days post start of intake

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

acute intake/ unit excretion

1e+6

1e+7

1e+8

HAN-1

Type S 

Type S*4.0

RF 872 

Figure C-2. Comparison of urinary excretion following an acute intake. 

ATTACHMENT C

DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR [30]

Page 2 of 4
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 42 of 56

 

days post intake

0 100 200 300 400

Acute intake per unit excretion

1e+5

1e+6

1e+7

1e+8

Type S 

HAN-1 

RF 872

4.0*Type S

Figure C-3. Comparison of urinary excretion following a chronic intake. 

In order to independently evaluate if the adjustment factors discussed above provide plausible 

bounding results, autopsy and bioassay data from USTUR were obtained for a number of Rocky Flats 

Plant workers with confirmed plutonium intakes. Seven cases were selected that had detectable 

values for both lung and urine bioassay measurements. These cases included three from the October 

15, 1965, fire. One of these cases also had several wound uptakes and received DTPA treatments. 

One of the other cases from the fire received DTPA treatments while the third did not. The cases also 

included two additional wound cases with no indication of significant airborne exposure. One of these 

cases received DTPA treatment. The last two cases did not receive DTPA treatment and were 

exposed to airborne incidents other than the 1965 fire. One was a discrete incident while the other 

case involved several incidents.

All cases were evaluated as if little were known about the case. That is, they were assumed to be 

exposed to a constant chronic intake for the duration of their employment. Urine samples less than 

0.2 dpm/d were excluded from the evaluation as being below the detection limit. In one case, an 

additional injection intake was assumed. This was necessary since no inhalation scenario could fit 

the urine data and the individual had a very large and well-documented injection incident (18 μg 

resulting in approximately 2000 dpm/d in the urine for only a short time).

Once the intakes were estimated, the expected lung content and liver content at autopsy was 

estimated using standard Type S parameters. The lung content was corrected using the adjustments 

discussed above; the liver content was not adjusted. These estimated contents were compared to 

autopsy data to verify that the adjustments are bounding. The results of this evaluation are provided 

in Table C-1.

ATTACHMENT C

Derivation of the Urinalysis Adjustment Factor

Page 2 of 5

ATTACHMENT C

DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJ USTMENT FACTOR

Page 4 of 5

ATTACHMENT C

DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR [30]

Page 3 of 4
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 43 of 56

The first column of Table C-1 shows that the lung content is overestimated in every case. This can be 

accounted for by realizing that these are well-defined incident cases associated with the registry and 

so are really acute intakes. Figure C-2 shows that the factor of 4 intake correction would likely cause 

the intake to be overestimated following an acute intake. 

Table C-1. Comparison of lung and liver estimates to autopsy data.

Ratio of lung estimate to 

autopsy measurement

Ratio of liver estimate to 

autopsy measurement Type of intakes DTPA

4.2 9.2 Fire No

33.8 3.3 Wound No

8.4 3.6 Other air No

53.4 1.0 Fire/wound Yes

8.6 2.9 Fire Yes

30.2 1.1 Various air No

123.5 3.7 Wound Yes

Even without the factor-of-4 intake adjustment, the lung content is overestimated in every case. This 

could be caused by several factors. The largest factor is that some of these cases had uptakes to the 

bloodstream other than through inhalation, most notably, through wounds. The three highest 

overestimates of lung content are associated with wound cases. Another contributing factor could be 

that some of the plutonium may not be Type SS material. For cases with the next highest 

overestimate of lung content (ratio of 30.2 in Table C-1), the Type S assumption alone produces an 

estimated lung content greater than all but one of the 17 lung counts performed on the individual. The 

16 over-predicted measurements range from a factor of just 1 to just under 3. Meanwhile, the Type 

SS adjustments overestimate all 17 lung counts by an average factor of 20. This indicates that this 

case is actually a Type S inhalation exposure due to the relatively close agreement of intakes 

determined using lung data and urine data when Type S is assumed.

The liver content was overestimated in all but one case. It is important to realize, however, that this is 

based on Type S parameters and not Type SS parameters. Therefore, for these cases, the Type S 

assumption alone is sufficient to overestimate the liver dose. This validates the assumption that the 

integrated urine content is proportional to the systemic organ dose. The overestimate is likely a result 

of the constant chronic intake assumption, which tends to overestimate the integrated urine content 

when discrete intakes occur.

ATTACHMENT C

DERIVATION OF THE URINALYSIS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR [30]

Page 4 of 4
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 44 of 56

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 1 of 13

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

D-1 Lung dose adjustment factors, acute intake and chronic intakes, 1–7 years ..........................

PAGE

45

D-2 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 8–15 years ................................................... 47

D-3 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 16–23 years ................................................. 49

D-4 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 24–31 years ................................................. 51

D-5 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 32–39 years ................................................. 53

D-6 Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 40–45 years ................................................. 55
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 45 of 56

Table D-1. Lung dose adjustment factors, acute intake and chronic intakes, 1–7 years. 

Year after acute 

intake or start of 

chronic intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Acute

Chronic

1 yr

Chronic

2 yr

Chronic

3 yr

Chronic

4 yr

Chronic

5 yr

Chronic

6 yr

Chronic

7 yr

1 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 4.4 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 5.5 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 6.8 6.1 5.5 4.8 4.2 3.5 2.9 2.9

7 8.1 7.4 6.7 6.0 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.1

8 9.4 8.7 8.0 7.2 6.5 5.7 4.9 4.1

9 11 10 9.3 8.5 7.7 6.9 6.1 5.2

10 12 11 11 9.9 9.1 8.2 7.4 6.5

11 13 13 12 11 10 9.6 8.7 7.8

12 14 14 13 12 12 11 10 9.1

13 15 15 14 14 13 12 11 11

14 17 16 15 15 14 13 13 12

15 18 17 17 16 15 15 14 13

16 19 18 18 17 16 16 15 14

17 21 20 19 18 18 17 16 16

18 22 21 20 20 19 18 18 17

19 23 23 22 21 20 20 19 18

20 25 24 23 23 22 21 20 19

21 27 26 25 24 23 23 22 21

22 28 27 26 26 25 24 23 22

23 30 29 28 27 26 26 25 24

24 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25

25 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27

26 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29

27 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31

28 40 39 38 37 36 35 33 32

29 42 41 40 39 38 37 35 34

30 45 44 42 41 40 39 38 36

31 47 46 45 43 42 41 40 39

32 50 49 47 46 45 43 42 41

33 53 51 50 49 47 46 45 43

34 56 54 53 51 50 48 47 46

35 59 57 56 54 53 51 50 48

36 62 60 59 57 56 54 52 51

37 65 64 62 60 59 57 55 54

38 69 67 65 63 62 60 58 57

39 72 71 69 67 65 63 62 60

40 76 74 72 70 69 67 65 63

41 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66

42 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70

43 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74

44 93 91 88 86 84 82 80 78

45 98 95 93 91 88 86 84 82

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 2 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 46 of 56

Year after acute 

intake or start of 

chronic intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Acute

Chronic

1 yr

Chronic

2 yr

Chronic

3 yr

Chronic

4 yr

Chronic

5 yr

Chronic

6 yr

Chronic

7 yr

46 100 100 97 95 93 90 88 86

47 110 110 100 100 97 95 92 90

48 110 110 110 110 100 100 97 95

49 120 120 110 110 110 110 100 99

50 120 120 120 120 110 110 110 100

51 130 130 120 120 120 120 110 110

52 140 130 130 130 120 120 120 110

53 140 140 140 130 130 130 120 120

54 150 150 140 140 140 130 130 130

55 160 150 150 150 140 140 140 130

56 160 160 160 150 150 140 140 140

57 170 170 160 160 160 150 150 140

58 180 170 170 170 160 160 150 150

59 180 180 180 170 170 170 160 160

60 190 190 180 180 180 170 170 170

61 200 200 190 190 180 180 180 170

62 210 210 200 200 190 190 180 180

63 220 210 210 210 200 200 190 190

64 230 220 220 210 210 200 200 200

65 240 230 230 220 220 210 210 200

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 3 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 47 of 56

Table D-2. Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 8–15 years. 

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

8 yr

Chronic

9 yr

Chronic

10 yr

Chronic

11 yr

Chronic

12 yr

Chronic

13 yr

Chronic

14 yr

Chronic

15 yr

1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

9 4.4 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 5.6 4.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

11 6.8 5.9 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 8.2 7.2 6.2 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

13 9.6 8.6 7.6 6.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

14 11 10 9.0 7.9 6.8 5.8 4.7 4.7

15 12 11 10 9.3 8.2 7.1 6.0 4.9

16 14 13 12 11 9.7 8.5 7.4 6.2

17 15 14 13 12 11 10 8.9 7.7

18 16 15 14 14 13 12 10 9.2

19 17 17 16 15 14 13 12 11

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12

21 20 19 18 17 17 16 15 14

22 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15

23 23 22 21 20 19 19 18 17

24 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18

25 26 25 24 23 23 22 21 20

26 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21

27 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23

28 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24

29 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26

30 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28

31 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 29

32 40 38 37 36 35 34 32 31

33 42 41 39 38 37 36 34 33

34 44 43 42 40 39 38 37 35

35 47 45 44 43 41 40 39 37

36 49 48 47 45 44 42 41 40

37 52 51 49 48 46 45 43 42

38 55 54 52 50 49 47 46 44

39 58 56 55 53 52 50 48 47

40 61 60 58 56 54 53 51 50

41 65 63 61 59 57 56 54 52

42 68 66 64 62 61 59 57 55

43 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58

44 75 73 71 69 67 65 63 61

45 79 77 75 73 71 69 67 65

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 4 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 48 of 56

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

8 yr

Chronic

9 yr

Chronic

10 yr

Chronic

11 yr

Chronic

12 yr

Chronic

13 yr

Chronic

14 yr

Chronic

15 yr

46 83 81 79 77 75 72 70 68

47 88 85 83 81 78 76 74 72

48 92 90 87 85 83 80 78 76

49 97 94 92 89 87 84 82 80

50 100 99 96 94 91 89 86 84

51 110 100 100 98 96 93 90 88

52 110 110 110 100 100 98 95 92

53 120 110 110 110 110 100 100 97

54 120 120 120 110 110 110 110 100

55 130 130 120 120 120 110 110 110

56 130 130 130 130 120 120 120 110

57 140 140 130 130 130 120 120 120

58 150 140 140 140 130 130 130 120

59 150 150 150 140 140 140 130 130

60 160 160 150 150 150 140 140 140

61 170 160 160 160 150 150 150 140

62 180 170 170 160 160 160 150 150

63 180 180 180 170 170 160 160 150

64 190 190 180 180 170 170 170 160

65 200 200 190 190 180 180 170 170

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 5 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 49 of 56

Table D-3. Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 16–23 years. 

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

16 yr

Chronic

17 yr

Chronic

18 yr

Chronic

19 yr

Chronic

20 yr

Chronic

21 yr

Chronic

22 yr

Chronic

23 yr

1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

13 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

14 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

15 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

17 6.5 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

18 7.9 6.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

19 9.5 8.2 6.9 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

20 11 9.8 8.5 7.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

21 13 11 10 8.7 7.4 6.0 6.0 6.0

22 14 13 12 10 9.0 7.6 6.2 6.2

23 16 14 13 12 11 9.2 7.8 6.3

24 17 16 15 14 12 11 9.5 8.0

25 19 17 16 15 14 13 11 9.7

26 20 19 18 17 16 14 13 11

27 22 21 20 18 17 16 15 13

28 23 22 21 20 19 18 16 15

29 25 24 23 22 21 19 18 17

30 27 26 25 23 22 21 20 19

31 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 20

32 30 29 28 27 26 25 23 22

33 32 31 30 29 27 26 25 24

34 34 33 32 30 29 28 27 26

35 36 35 34 32 31 30 29 28

36 38 37 36 34 33 32 31 29

37 41 39 38 36 35 34 33 31

38 43 41 40 39 37 36 35 33

39 45 44 42 41 40 38 37 35

40 48 46 45 43 42 40 39 38

41 51 49 47 46 44 43 41 40

42 53 52 50 48 47 45 44 42

43 56 55 53 51 50 48 46 45

44 60 58 56 54 52 51 49 47

45 63 61 59 57 55 53 52 50

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 6 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 50 of 56

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

16 yr

Chronic

17 yr

Chronic

18 yr

Chronic

19 yr

Chronic

20 yr

Chronic

21 yr

Chronic

22 yr

Chronic

23 yr

46 66 64 62 60 58 56 55 53

47 70 68 66 63 61 59 58 56

48 73 71 69 67 65 63 61 59

49 77 75 73 70 68 66 64 62

50 81 79 76 74 72 70 67 65

51 85 83 80 78 76 73 71 69

52 90 87 85 82 80 77 75 72

53 94 92 89 86 84 81 79 76

54 99 96 93 91 88 85 83 80

55 100 100 98 95 93 90 87 84

56 110 110 100 100 97 94 91 89

57 110 110 110 110 100 99 96 93

58 120 120 110 110 110 100 100 98

59 130 120 120 120 110 110 110 100

60 130 130 120 120 120 110 110 110

61 140 130 130 130 120 120 120 110

62 140 140 140 130 130 130 120 120

63 150 150 140 140 140 130 130 120

64 160 150 150 150 140 140 130 130

65 160 160 160 150 150 140 140 140

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 7 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 51 of 56

Table D-4. Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 24–31 years. 

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

24 yr

Chronic

25 yr

Chronic

26 yr

Chronic

27 yr

Chronic

28 yr

Chronic

29 yr

Chronic

30 yr

Chronic

31 yr

1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

13 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

14 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

15 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

17 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

18 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

19 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

20 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

21 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

22 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2

23 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

24 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

25 8.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

26 10 8.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9

27 12 10 8.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

28 14 12 10 8.9 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2

29 15 14 12 11 9.1 7.4 7.4 7.4

30 17 16 14 13 11 9.3 7.5 7.5

31 19 18 16 14 13 11 9.5 7.7

32 21 19 18 16 15 13 11 9.7

33 23 21 20 18 17 15 13 12

34 24 23 22 20 19 17 15 14

35 26 25 24 22 21 19 18 16

36 28 27 26 24 23 21 20 18

37 30 29 27 26 25 23 22 20

38 32 31 29 28 27 25 24 22

39 34 33 31 30 29 27 26 24

40 36 35 33 32 31 29 28 26

41 38 37 35 34 33 31 30 28

42 41 39 38 36 35 33 32 30

43 43 41 40 38 37 35 34 32

44 46 44 42 41 39 38 36 35

45 48 46 45 43 42 40 38 37

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 8 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 52 of 56

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

24 yr

Chronic

25 yr

Chronic

26 yr

Chronic

27 yr

Chronic

28 yr

Chronic

29 yr

Chronic

30 yr

Chronic

31 yr

46 51 49 47 46 44 42 41 39

47 54 52 50 48 47 45 43 41

48 57 55 53 51 49 47 46 44

49 60 58 56 54 52 50 48 47

50 63 61 59 57 55 53 51 49

51 67 64 62 60 58 56 54 52

52 70 68 66 63 61 59 57 55

53 74 71 69 67 65 62 60 58

54 78 75 73 70 68 66 63 61

55 82 79 77 74 72 69 67 65

56 86 83 81 78 76 73 71 68

57 90 88 85 82 79 77 74 72

58 95 92 89 86 84 81 78 76

59 100 97 94 91 88 85 82 80

60 110 100 98 95 92 89 87 84

61 110 110 100 100 97 94 91 88

62 120 110 110 110 100 99 96 93

63 120 120 110 110 110 100 100 97

64 130 120 120 120 110 110 110 100

65 130 130 130 120 120 110 110 110

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 9 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 53 of 56

Table D-5. Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 32–39 years. 

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

32 yr

Chronic

33 yr

Chronic

34 yr

Chronic

35 yr

Chronic

36 yr

Chronic

37 yr

Chronic

38 yr

Chronic

39 yr

1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

13 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

14 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

15 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

17 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

18 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

19 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

20 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

21 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

22 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2

23 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

24 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

25 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

26 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9

27 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

28 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2

29 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4

30 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

31 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7

32 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9

33 9.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

34 12 10 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

35 14 12 10 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

36 16 14 12 11 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5

37 18 16 15 13 11 8.7 8.7 8.7

38 20 19 17 15 13 11 8.9 8.9

39 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9.1

40 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11

41 27 25 24 22 20 18 16 14

42 29 27 26 24 22 20 18 16

43 31 29 28 26 24 23 21 19

44 33 32 30 28 27 25 23 21

45 35 34 32 31 29 27 25 23

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 10 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 54 of 56

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

32 yr

Chronic

33 yr

Chronic

34 yr

Chronic

35 yr

Chronic

36 yr

Chronic

37 yr

Chronic

38 yr

Chronic

39 yr

46 37 36 34 33 31 29 28 26

47 40 38 37 35 33 32 30 28

48 42 41 39 37 36 34 32 30

49 45 43 41 40 38 36 34 33

50 47 46 44 42 40 39 37 35

51 50 48 46 45 43 41 39 37

52 53 51 49 47 45 44 42 40

53 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42

54 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45

55 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 48

56 66 63 61 59 57 55 53 50

57 69 67 65 62 60 58 56 53

58 73 71 68 66 63 61 59 56

59 77 74 72 69 67 64 62 60

60 81 78 76 73 70 68 65 63

61 85 82 80 77 74 72 69 66

62 90 87 84 81 78 75 73 70

63 94 91 88 85 82 79 77 74

64 99 96 93 90 86 84 81 78

65 100 100 97 94 91 88 85 82

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 11 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 55 of 56

Table D-6. Lung dose adjustment factors, chronic intakes, 40–45 years. 

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

40 yr

Chronic

41 yr

Chronic

42 yr

Chronic

43 yr

Chronic

44 yr

Chronic

45 yr

1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

2 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6

6 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

7 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1

8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

10 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8

11 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

12 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

13 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

14 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

15 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

16 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

17 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2

18 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4

19 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6

20 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

21 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

22 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2

23 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

24 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

25 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7

26 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9

27 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

28 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2

29 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4

30 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5

31 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7

32 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9

33 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

34 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2

35 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4

36 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5

37 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

38 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9

39 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1

40 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2

41 12 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4

42 14 12 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6

43 16 14 12 9.7 9.7 9.7

44 19 17 14 12 9.9 9.9

45 21 19 17 15 12 10

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 12 of 13
Document No. ORAUT-OTIB-0049 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 12/18/2007 Page 56 of 56

Year after start 

of chronic 

intakes

Lung dose adjustment factor for intake periods

Chronic

40 yr

Chronic

41 yr

Chronic

42 yr

Chronic

43 yr

Chronic

44 yr

Chronic

45 yr

46 24 22 20 17 15 13

47 26 24 22 20 18 15

48 29 27 25 23 20 18

49 31 29 27 25 23 21

50 33 31 30 28 26 23

51 36 34 32 30 28 26

52 38 36 34 33 31 29

53 41 39 37 35 33 31

54 43 41 39 37 36 34

55 46 44 42 40 38 36

56 48 46 45 43 41 39

57 51 49 47 45 43 41

58 54 52 50 48 46 44

59 57 55 53 51 49 47

60 61 58 56 54 52 49

61 64 62 59 57 55 52

62 67 65 63 60 58 55

63 71 69 66 63 61 59

64 75 72 70 67 64 62

65 79 76 73 71 68 65

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJ USTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 1 of 12

ATTACHMENT D

LUNG DOSE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS [31]

Page 13 of 13